Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moscow cigar lounge owner asks council to amend smoking ordinance to allow alcohol service
Summary
Owner of The Refuge Cigar Lounge told the Moscow City Council on Aug. 18 that Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 23 treats his business like a typical bar and prevents the lounge from offering alcohol service; he asked the council to consider a narrowly tailored amendment to permit alcohol service where smoking is the central activity.
Cody Barr, owner-operator of The Refuge Cigar Lounge, urged the Moscow City Council on Aug. 18 to consider a narrow change to a local smoking ordinance so his business can serve alcohol indoors. Barr said his lounge, which opened about five months ago, operates around indoor cigar smoking and that patrons and staff “expect” smoke in the venue.
Barr asked the council to consider an amendment to Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 23 — the local ordinance that prohibits smoking in bars — to allow alcohol service in businesses “where smoking is the central purpose.” He said the ordinance’s stated aim is to protect employees and patrons from involuntary secondhand smoke, which he said is appropriate in most bars, but that applying it unchanged to a cigar lounge prevents customers from pairing cigars with whiskey — a common and expected experience at his business.
Barr said the lounge’s employees accept the working environment and that the proposed amendment would preserve the ordinance’s public-health purpose while allowing cigar-focused businesses to offer alcohol service. He told the council he and Councilmember Haley Lewis had recently discussed a proposed, “highly specific” amendment. Barr said he had not applied for a liquor license because he expects the city-level permit process would block the application, but added he and the business could obtain alcohol ‘‘right away’’ if the ordinance were changed. He left a printed handout summarizing the issue and a copy of the ordinance with city staff.
Council members asked brief procedural questions. One council member asked whether Barr had put his name on the liquor-license list; Barr said the lounge had not applied yet because of the anticipated city-level restriction. The exchange did not result in a formal motion or change to the ordinance during the meeting.
Why this matters: The request raises a policy choice between applying a broad public-health rule uniformly and carving a narrow exception for businesses whose primary purpose is indoor smoking. Any change to Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 23 would require council action and likely additional staff review and draft ordinance language.
Barr’s remarks occurred during the public-comment period; no council action on the ordinance was taken at the Aug. 18 meeting.
